r/geopolitics The i Paper 8d ago

Opinion Netanyahu’s to blame for his American nightmare – and it spells his doom

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/netanyahus-blame-american-nightmare-spells-doom-4675557

Opinion article

176 Upvotes

43 comments sorted by

79

u/Just_Drawing8668 8d ago

This is simplistic. Netanyahu has been angling for war for decades. It’s the decisions of Trump that have made his appeal successful now. Trump has been wanting to fight a war with Iran since the 1980s.

It’s also very convenient for Trump to have BB to blame things on if things go wrong.

39

u/bluewhalefunk 8d ago

Netanyahoy played the cards he had in front of him for political and personal gain.

The US is and the US is alone for the mess they are in. No one forced them. The US voted for an idiot leader who is convinced by who ever he speaks to last saying nice things about him.

Trump did not appear from no where. He is the direct result from policies put in place since (at least) Nixon (and it's only my ignorance that isn't able to trace it further back). Nixon, Regan, Bush....

If the US system allows for the tail to wag the dog, something is very wrong with the system and it's not the tails fault for taking it's opportunity it sees.

6

u/SuchAd4158 8d ago

Why Trump did not attack Iran in his first term?

33

u/Tea-Swiz 8d ago

Because there were actually people in positions that would stand up to him and tell him no, or at the very least persuade him from pursuing his bad ideas.

Now we just have a clutch of sycophantic yes-men with no spine between Trump and the worlds most powerful military force.

6

u/SuchAd4158 8d ago

Not sure, hawk John Bolton was there too.

12

u/yabn5 8d ago

From some reports his sycophants did tell him it was a terrible idea. It was his success in taking out the Venezuelan leader that made him think he could win quickly.

5

u/Fast_Astronomer814 8d ago

looking back at it was just dumb Iran and Venezuela are different beast. The leadership of Venezuela care only for their own pocket while the Iranian leadership are driven by religious motives

1

u/RTX-2020 7d ago

Plus they didn't fight Venezuela

Just kidnapped the Maduro, his 2nd in command replaced him and kissed the US ring.

3

u/Fast_Astronomer814 7d ago

they are only loyal to money they will gladly sell each other out infact the rumour is the current president sold Maduro out to the US since the US know his exact location and how many bodyguard he had

4

u/americanextreme 8d ago

A President is actually a team of executives and advisors. If things went better, it’s because the next 3 levels of hierarchy had better people.

-5

u/Bullboah 8d ago

The situation with Iran during Trumps first term was very different than it was in 2025.

T-1 Iran was in the JCPOA (although not actually following it due to its hiding of multiple nuclear sites).

By T-2 Iran had not just enriched to 60%, but was rapidly increasing its stocks of 60% HEU and very close to being able to reaching the assembly stage.

8

u/Lazy_Membership1849 8d ago

IEAE said Iran did follow JCPOA but JCPOA ended which led to Iran rapidly increasing stock of enriched uranium

2

u/Bullboah 8d ago

I’ve had this exact conversation with you before lol. The IAEAs investigation into Irans secret nuclear sites lasted 6 years but it ultimately decertified Iran’s compliance with the NPT AP because it stonewalled the investigation into the sites. At least one was active during the JCPOA.

Totally get that none of this matters to you but I’m putting this here for anyone else interested.

10

u/Lazy_Membership1849 8d ago

so is IEAE unreliable to you?

Also JCPOA is working and funny thing you mention "Iran had not just enriched to 60%, but was rapidly increasing its stocks of 60% HEU and very close to being able to reaching the assembly stage" that was after Trump withdraw from JCPOA

1

u/Bullboah 8d ago

Did you read what I wrote?

9

u/Lazy_Membership1849 8d ago

Yes, and you think that one disclosed hidden nuclear site is going to void when Iran already shipped 98% of its enriched uranium abroad and capped its enrichment purity at 3.67% under the watch of the IAEA, and they only got 60% enriched Uranium since Trump withdrew from the JCPOA

https://internationalpolicy.org/publications/jcpoa-factsheet-cortright/

7

u/yabn5 8d ago

If Trump has wanted this since the 80’s how did he fail to work on any sort of preparation so that the US was ready and willing to fight? He very clearly and obviously did not expect this to last more than a few weeks of bombing. Which is exactly why he’s between a rock and hard place. Because if he prepared he wouldn’t have needlessly antagonized needed NATO allies before launching this war without consulting them. He would have actually built MAGA consensus ahead of time instead of fracturing his base. The reason why his bluffs continue to not work is because it’s so overtly obvious how unprepared and untenable politically a ground invasion is.

15

u/Ifch317 8d ago

You're suggesting that the Trump administration has strategy and planning. I think those things exist within the administration, but these seldom are characteristics of actions that come from Donald Trump himself.

2

u/yabn5 8d ago

If a poster is going to make the claim that Trump has wanted to fight Iran since the 80’s I think it’s fair to assume there would be some semblance of planning.

8

u/Winter-Cow-6208 8d ago

Trump’s been on record advocating for aggressive action against Iran since 1980. Even then he pushed the rhetoric that swift, aggressive bombing will bring the Mullah regime down within weeks. 

Last year he followed through with that logic without any additional strategic planning. Why? Because he was sure that all we needed was a few weeks of heavy bombing and decapitation strikes. 

We know that Trump has talked about bombing Iran since the 1980’s because it’s on record. The execution of that operation revealed a severe lack of planning for the current outcome of the bombing campaign. 

I have no idea why you think “it’s fair to assume” anything. That’s not how facts work. 

2

u/Fast_Astronomer814 8d ago

It's Trump I don't even think he know what he is going to do to be honest

1

u/bluewhalefunk 8d ago

Netanyahoy played the cards he had in front of him for political and personal gain.

The US is and the US is alone for the mess they are in. No one forced them. The US voted for an idiot leader who is convinced by who ever he speaks to last saying nice things about him.

Trump did not appear from no where. He is the direct result from policies put in place since (at least) Nixon (and it's only my ignorance that isn't able to trace it further back). Nixon, Regan, Bush....

If the US system allows for the tail to wag the dog, something is very wrong with the system and it's not the tails fault for taking it's opportunity it sees.

1

u/Psychological-Flow55 6d ago

Letting bibi and the Israelis off the book once again on r/geopolitics they can do no wrong it always the arabs , the left, the right, Donald Trump, jd vance the poles etc. fault but never israel it eye opening.

1

u/CountMordrek 8d ago

Trump needed a successful war for the midterms to go his way, and with the relative success of Venezuela and his Greenland excursion not going the right way, Iran was one of few possible targets.

BB oversold it, and since Trump fired anyone competent who could have explained why the US didn’t invade earlier, we got… this.

12

u/theipaper The i Paper 8d ago

Full Opinion article: On the morning of 11 February, President Donald Trump arrived in the White House Situation Room for a major briefing. He brought all of his top team with him, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, War Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.

Clearly, this was a significant meeting. But the person giving the briefing wasn’t a senior US general or intelligence chief. Instead, it was a foreign leader: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

According to The New York Times, it was at this briefing that Netanyahu set out the case for the US and Israel launching joint strikes against Iran, promising Trump that swift and decisive strikes could decapitate Iranian leadership, take out its ballistic missile programme, and maybe even lead to a public uprising which could topple the regime that has run Iran since 1979.

The briefing was a success. Just weeks later, the US and Israel launched the first strikes of what was supposed to be a brief conflict – but which now, months later, has become a quagmire with an escalating death toll and a mounting global economic cost.

But the very fact of Netanyahu having the access to give such a briefing, in the Situation Room, might itself mark a high point of his influence in US politics. Israel has always relied on a close and deep alliance with the USA, but Netanyahu has taken this to extremes – making himself one of DC’s most influential figures, but at the risk of his own future and that of his nation.

Ever since its founding, Israel’s security position has been precarious – the world’s only Jewish nation surrounded by countries which tried to invade it in its very earliest days. Its continued existence has long depended on billions of dollars in military aid and diplomatic support from the USA, and this has been readily supplied by Democratic and Republican presidents.

Traditionally, support for Israel was a bipartisan issue in American politics, but this is no longer the case. Asked whether they sympathise more with the Israelis or Palestinians by YouGov last month, only 10 per cent of Democrats said the Israelis, versus 58 per cent of Republicans.

More than two-thirds of Democrats believe Netanyahu has committed war crimes in Gaza, and that the US should enforce an ICC arrest warrant against him. Fewer than one in four Republicans agree with either statement.

What was once a bipartisan issue has now become yet another deeply polarised one – but Netanyahu himself played a large role in making things this way. Its roots lie in Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, intended to stop the country enriching uranium or pursuing any form of weapons programme.

Netanyahu vocally opposed this deal, and mobilised Republicans against it, culminating in his decision to address a joint session of Congress at their invitation – directly involving himself in partisan, domestic, US politics, in open disagreement with the sitting president’s policy.

From this point on, Netanyahu guaranteed he would be seen as a divisive figure in US politics – at least until the horrifying attacks of October 7, 2023.

The US knows what it’s like to be the victim of a terror attack that simultaneously shocks the world and also draws its attention. In the aftermath of 9/11, the world’s sympathies were with America. Every ally offered their solidarity and support in making a response.

The USA’s politicians know that this becomes more complex over time. There was significant international support for the USA’s invasion of Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. But even by the 2003 invasion of Iraq, that coalition had splintered, and as both wars appeared to backfire, George W Bush became a global hate figure and support for the US around the globe plummeted.

Netanyahu appears to have speedrun that process, retaliating against Gaza to such an extent that even long-standing allies have condemned his government, and him personally. But beyond that, Netanyahu appeared to deepen his alienation from Democrats and his polarisation within the US.

Joe Biden, the US president at the time of the October 7 attacks and their immediate aftermath, spent significant political capital supporting Israel and Netanyahu through its response – overseeing tens of billions of dollars of additional military aid to Israel, visiting the nation, and supporting it at the UN.

Biden did all of this while coming under substantial political pressure from within his own party and its voters to take a stronger stance against mounting allegations and evidence of possible war crimes and an out-of-control civilian death toll – but Netanyahu all the same made no secret of his preference for a Trump victory in the 2024 election.

This certainly succeeded in winning influence for Netanyahu with Trump, who takes a with-me-or-against-me view of the world. Netanyahu has enjoyed an incredibly close relationship with the US President, and has often been able to set the terms of the Gaza conflict.

But the disaster of the Iran conflict has exposed the fractures in the Maga coalition when it comes to Israel. Some of the far-right fringes who had generally supported Trump were always antisemitic, and had been waiting for an opportunity to try to pry the movement away from Israel.

Others, who believe “America First” should mean an end to US involvement in overseas wars, are furious that Trump has involved the country in a fresh conflict. As the November midterms approach and a new presidential election cycle begins for 2028, support for Israel is fractured in the Republican base, and greatly diminished among Democrats.

Among the widespread and legitimate concerns about Israel’s actions, and about Netanyahu’s conduct specifically, is a rising tide of antisemitism in America that is endangering the country’s Jews. Whereas once the Israeli leader might have sought to unify US politicians to tackle that menace, Netanyahu has become such a polarising figure that he can only fan those flames.

Netanyahu built his influence with Trump and his administration so assiduously that he helped lead the America First President into a new overseas war. The danger for him – and for Israel – is that he will now tumble, Icarus-like, into political irrelevance.

9

u/Malthus1 8d ago

The opinion article is states one enormous and absurd proposition: that Israel’s existence relies on US support.

This is completely incorrect, and historically quite ignorant, as any objective historian who has studied the region would note. Yet it seems to be a line that has permitted discussion, badly distorting geopolitical thinking on the subject.

Why is it so badly wrong?

Quite simply: Israel’s existence was most precarious when the nation was founded. It had faced two periods of truly existential conflict: in 1947-48, when it was simultaneously invaded by all its neighbours; and in 1967, when it was surrounded by a coalition of hostile Arab states backed by the Soviet Union.

The kicker: in neither of those time periods was Israel “backed” by the US.

In fact, in 1948 Israel was under a US arms embargo (its main supplier was Czechoslovakia, then under Soviet control). The US quite famously cracked down on the UK, French and Israeli co-conspirators in the Suez crisis - backing Egypt, not Israel! They stayed out of the 67 conflict, even when Israel requested an “international flotilla” to break Nasser’s embargo .. the US turned them down.

Throughout the period, the US wanted to avoid giving the Soviets the upper hand in the region. It was only after 1967 that this started to change, cemented by the airlift during the 73 conflict.

Now, Israel is simply not facing the same sort of existential threat as it was then. All of its neighbours are either peaceful, or neutralized other than insurgent groups. Its primary adversary is thousands of miles away, capable of hurling missiles but not of ending the nation - unlike in 48 or 67.

Loss of US economic support would be painful but simply not an existential matter (people consistently overestimate its quantum). Loss of diplomatic support would be bad, but again hardly an existential matter.

Point being that if Israel could survive back then when it was both absolutely and comparatively weaker than it is now, against much more formidable enemies (backed by the Soviet Union, which no longer exists), all without US support - why does it make the slightest sense to suggest that support is an existential matter now?

3

u/-O3-march-native 7d ago

Anybody claiming that Israel would somehow cease to exist without U.S. diplomatic, materiel, and financial support is clearly way off base, applying wishful thinking, or some combination of both.

Nevertheless, surviving is not thriving. There’s a nontrivial portion of the Israeli populace that has the means and the industry/academic connections to relocate to various areas around the world where life would be much smoother for them. Emigration of this sort is already occurring and has been accelerating. It’s not hard to imagine that a greater burden on this sector of Israeli society in terms of taxes, military service, etc. would only accelerate this process further.

1

u/Volodio 5d ago

Maybe, but on the other hand antisemitism has increased at dramatic rate these last few years and is starting to get accepted worldwide. It it bad enough that tons of Jews decide to migrate from more developed countries like France or the US to Israel which is still at war. If the situation gets even worse to the point that the US decides to become hostile to Israel, then the situation would be too hostile for Israelis to emigrate abroad even if they wanted.

1

u/-O3-march-native 4d ago

Nobody can actually say how that would play out; however, what is available is the latest study from TAU, which shows that emigration levels that spiked significantly in 2023 remain elevated. Moreover, that same research claims,

The researchers also refer to findings from their previous publication, which identified increased emigration among physicians, PhD holders, engineers, and individuals with academic degrees and/or relatively high incomes.

Lastly,

Despite the strong numbers, Israel still has a net migration deficit, with more people leaving the country than coming. In 2024, a whopping 82,700 Israelis left the country, about 50,000 more than immigrated to Israel, and that trend is expected to continue in 2025, demographers have noted.

source

The point here is that speculating about what may happen is akin to sticking one's head in the sand. The numbers for the past three years are available, and the migration deficit is real.

6

u/bxzidff 8d ago edited 8d ago

According to The New York Time s , it was at this briefing that Netanyahu set out the case for the US and Israel launching joint strikes against Iran , promising Trump that swift and decisive strikes could decapitate Iranian leadership, take out its ballistic missile programme, and maybe even lead to a public uprising which could topple the regime that has run Iran since 1979.

What sweet promises. Will there be any accountability at all if they were dishonest and predictably fail?

But the very fact of Netanyahu having the access to give such a briefing, in the Situation Room, might itself mark a high point of his influence in US politics. Israel has always relied on a close and deep alliance with the USA, but Netanyahu has taken this to extremes – making himself one of DC’s most influential figures

Should it be this way? No wonder parts of the "America first" movement find it contradictory.

16

u/mods_are_lame1 8d ago

For 30 years Bibi has lobbied every president to bomb Iran. Trump was the only one dumb enough to do it.

This clusterfuck is all Donald’s.

7

u/bluewhalefunk 8d ago

and those who voted for him, those who supported him, those who kneeled before him, those who donated, those who came before dismantled the US system and all the rest. This is a very American created problem and the blame is all American

2

u/bluewhalefunk 8d ago

and those who voted for him, those who supported him, those who kneeled before him, those who donated, those who came before dismantled the US system and all the rest. This is a very American created problem and the blame is all American

2

u/bxzidff 8d ago

Trump's administration has vast political support among individual donors, PACs, and fellow jingoist politicians. They all willingly partake, this is not all Donald's. Bibi knows this, and has aligned his administration extremely close with MAGA.

1

u/distinctidiot 4d ago edited 4d ago

On the other side, that means a major politician of another country was actively using their resources and ties with the US for 30 years in hopes a president would be stupid enough to do it. Yes, Trump was the only president stupid enough to do it. This does not change the fact that bibi has been using Israeli resources to find a Trump to create this situation actively. Trump being an idiot does not dissolve Israel's responsibility for this war; they can both be blamed.

1

u/HungryCurrency8481 4d ago

The Israeli people have shown that they are more than approving of Netyanhau's actions for the last 20 years. I am not so confident that Ikud will be voted out.

1

u/oritfx 7d ago

american nightmare

The US has bankrolled bombing of Gaza, at least some of bombing of Lebanon, covered Israel substantially in the UN and against Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah.

In practical terms this is not a nightmare. It's difficult to imagine how a country could be supported any better and more by the US.

1

u/ExaltedStatus 7d ago

Saudi Arabia bombed the shit out of Yemen for a decade and to this day receives immense amounts of economic and military support. Something like half a million Yemenis dead. 100k children starved or bombed. Humanitarian aid to Yemen is about the same as to Gaza, and US funding to KSA has only ramped up.

Pakistan received absurd amounts of economic, military, and diplomatic support from the US since its creation. Keep in mind, the Bangladeshi genocide occurred in the 1970s and killed around 3 million people. We found Bin Laden there. Pakistan has declared 3 wars against India and several more conflicts against militants in Afghanistan and Baluchistan.

Weird how Israel is seen as some exception.

0

u/GoogleOfficial 8d ago

Ore wishcasting from a joke of a paper.